Alex

When you put it all on the line defending freedom, nobody should take a basic freedom away from you.

The Voter Restriction Amendment might seem like a good idea, but when the legislature put it on the ballot, they screwed it up.

To them, military IDs aren't valid IDs, which means this amendment takes away basic freedom from people who gave a whole lot.

Let's send this back, and make them fix it.

Vote no.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Kevin Chavis]

I really hope you all defend this ad because war veterans have died for all the fake WMDs Republicans said were in Iraq. Veterans do not deserve to lose their voting rights.

[Robert Hemphill]

Other states make clear exceptions to ensure the military vote. This amendment does not. That's the reason we want to send it back to the legislature and fix it.

[Jake Gysland]

Election integrity is one thing—which I agree is important—but this is an unfunded mandate... Whether we should cut spending somewhere else or not is irrelevant, because until we do—and given the constant struggle to balance the budget, even IF we do—this means increases in taxes for millions of Minnesotans.

Moreover, if this does go to the courts (which it certainly would), this question of 'substantially equivalent' is going to come up... Which almost certainly means no more absentee voting.

[Jody Rieck]

I meant for the overseas military, no I don't want this to go to federal court. I didn't say I agree with giving "free" IDs and I know there will be costs associated with this. There is lots of wasteful spending that should be cut but ensuring integrity in our voting system is a worthy cause to spend my tax dollars on.  We may just have to agree to disagree. I believe in election integrity that is why I volunteer as an election judge and why I will be voting yes on voter ID.

[Jake Gysland]

There's no reason to think the enabling legislation for this amendment would be any different than the legislation that preceded it.

As for federal law trumping state law—do you really want to see this get dragged into the courts? And with respect to free IDs, we all know nothing is free. No, those IDs would be paid for by taxpayer dollars, and this amendment has no provisions to fund those IDs, so odds are it goes to municipalities and leads to increases in property taxes across the state.

[Jody Rieck]

Does it say anywhere in THIS bill, the one we are voting on, that military and tribal IDs do not meet the standard? No! Even if it did, state ID's will be provided to those who can not afford one. And really who doesn't have one, they are needed for nearly everything. Plus for those serving overseas Federal law trumps state law. Good for you for feeling it is ok to make misleading ads.

[Jake Gysland]

The same legislature that put this on the ballot sent legislation to the governor that contained specific language that only allowed a state-issued identification with a current address. Military IDs and Tribal IDs do not meet this standard.

[Robert Hemphill]

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"

The key word here is valid. All interpretations of "valid" end up being "current" which means "has a current address." Military IDs and Veterans Affairs cards, despite being government-issued, do not have any type of address on them.

[Jody Rieck]

I wish people would actually read the Bill passed by the house and senate.

It clearly says valid government ID which includes military, tribal and state ID's.

Read the bill and make up your own mind. Don't listen to these lies.